2) What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument in the film is the overfishing of many of our fish species. Not only does this have an effect on our fish market, but the biodiversity throughout the world. Fishing has always been one of the most stable ways of supporting communities, however, due to the modern demands of fish, technologies have advanced to the point where it has become very unstable. It focuses mainly on Bluefin tuna, that because of overfishing is on the verge of extinction.
3) What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The common misconception that the ocean is vast and never-ending is one of the largest sustainability problems. In contrast to popular belief, the ocean as a natural resource is exhaustive.
4) What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that the examples given of our impact on and the disruption of the natural biological interactions that keep the ocean’s ecosystem healthy was compelling. One of these examples was the increasing jellyfish populations and the takeover of rays in New England. We can see that we are disrupting ecological ties as well as predator/prey relationships.
5) What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The certification and regulation of “sustainable” fishing is not compelling to me. I do not think that this will do much. It reminds me a lot of the certification of diamonds distributed from certain countries. If there is any level of corruption within these institutions, I believe the process will become null.
6) What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses the people who are somewhat knowledgeable but would like to gain a better understanding of the fishing industry and other unsustainable practices. Because it uses Bluefin tuna as a major example, I do not believe someone would connect with this example if they did not already possess some level of information on the ocean and related issues.
7) What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I believe another example that is more closely related with the audience should have been used. Many people may not see the connection between themselves and a species of fish that lives across the world.
8) What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests a few intervention ideas, however they are all closely related and boil down to one single solution: policies 9) What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? I was compelled to find some successful examples of ways that more sustainable fishing practices have been implemented already. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/successful-sustainable-fishing-iniceland.php http://marinebio.org/Oceans/Conservation/sustainable-fisheries.asp
2) What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument in the film is the overfishing of many of our fish species. Not only does this have an effect on our fish market, but the biodiversity throughout the world. Fishing has always been one of the most stable ways of supporting communities, however, due to the modern demands of fish, technologies have advanced to the point where it has become very unstable. It focuses mainly on Bluefin tuna, that because of overfishing is on the verge of extinction.
3) What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The common misconception that the ocean is vast and never-ending is one of the largest sustainability problems. In contrast to popular belief, the ocean as a natural resource is exhaustive.
4) What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that the examples given of our impact on and the disruption of the natural biological interactions that keep the ocean’s ecosystem healthy was compelling. One of these examples was the increasing jellyfish populations and the takeover of rays in New England. We can see that we are disrupting ecological ties as well as predator/prey relationships.
5) What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The certification and regulation of “sustainable” fishing is not compelling to me. I do not think that this will do much. It reminds me a lot of the certification of diamonds distributed from certain countries. If there is any level of corruption within these institutions, I believe the process will become null.
6) What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses the people who are somewhat knowledgeable but would like to gain a better understanding of the fishing industry and other unsustainable practices. Because it uses Bluefin tuna as a major example, I do not believe someone would connect with this example if they did not already possess some level of information on the ocean and related issues.
7) What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I believe another example that is more closely related with the audience should have been used. Many people may not see the connection between themselves and a species of fish that lives across the world.
8) What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests a few intervention ideas, however they are all closely related and boil down to one single solution: policies
9) What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I was compelled to find some successful examples of ways that more sustainable fishing practices have been implemented already.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/successful-sustainable-fishing-iniceland.php
http://marinebio.org/Oceans/Conservation/sustainable-fisheries.asp